BANGOR, Maine — Some 50 people who have made rude, crude or obnoxious comments on the Bangor Police Department’s Facebook page have been banned from posting, and a new policy was put into effect Tuesday to permanently ban others who follow suit. “Beginning immediately, anyone who… Read More

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

Keep it civil and stay on topic

No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.

People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here
are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone
did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember
that young people are on this site too.

Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted
passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need
to shout.

Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.

This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.

Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God —
aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see
your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.

If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments
on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.

Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at
web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

That's about it: Stick to writing about the stories; be civil; be kind; enlighten your neighbors. And
we'll keep moderating posts to try to ensure everyone meets those standards.

Anonymous

Where is shanna bellows on this issue.

Anonymous

Ricker didn’t bother to contact her for comment. It was too important to get the story out (rolling my eyes).

Too bad Facebook doesn’t have like a thumbs down so that if a comment gets to many thumbs down the comment is hidden or sent to a moderator for review

Anonymous

Do you and the 33 others who agree have any idea how ridiculous this idea is? Why don’t you just say it: Unpopular speech isn’t worthy of being heard.
If Facebook had existed during slavery, any speech promoting emancipation would have never been seen.
I am astounded at how ignorant people are when it comes to the history and importance of the First Amendment, and of how it applies to everyday life. In China, the government not only controls which films can be shown in theaters, but when those films can appear in theaters. Think about that the next time you go to the theater or watch a DVD, or even watch something on television or the computer.

It’s all fun and games until someone insults one of your loved ones, isn’t it?

Fact is, people who pull crap like that have no class. The police did the right thing, I’d do the same if it was my page.

Anonymous

The police have a right to cencor their page, yes. I agree as well.

My response was to “public” censoring by government, which this isn’t a case of in my opinion.

If the police were out charging folks with crimes or dragging folks from their homes because of what they said that would be public censoring. What “Bustd” said implied that he/she favors public censoring by government for the same reasons all tyrannical regimes in history used to justify tyranny.

Anonymous

You don’t get it: The police are the government. Therefore, they are not at liberty to infringe on others’ free speech rights, especially without due process.

Anonymous

I don’t get what? That you’re crying all over the BDN because you can’t deface the police departments page?? You don’t get it. They aren’t pressing criminal charges. You are free to go write “F-the police” on their page. They are just cleaning up virtual graffiti.

I have no problem with it and I’m as anti government as you will ever meet. I don’t think the police department should even exist as a public entity (different conversation.)

I believe in property rights. Facebook is the owner of the department’s page and is not a publicly owned entity. Facebook grants the creator sole permission along w/ facebook to manage their particular pages and to censor them in any way they see fit. This is not a publicly owned page. It is owned by facebook who is only accountable to their owners.

Anonymous

No, the city of Bangor is the owner of the page, which resides on a server provided by Facebook.

If you want to call comments from the public “graffiti,” you still lose on First Amendment grounds, because the city is allowing some graffiti but not others based on content. A policy allowing only positive or neutral graffiti but not negative graffiti is not content-neutral.
But no court would ever agree to calling straight-up speech graffiti. (And even graffiti can enjoy First Amendment protection.)
Even if Facebook were the owner of the page, the government is still abridging free speech rights without due process by taking it upon itself to determine which speech is OK and which speech is not OK. Once again, you lose.

Anonymous

“No, the city of Bangor is the owner of the page, which resides on a server provided by Facebook.”

-Facebook at anytime can yank that page out of existence for no reason. Who’s the owner now?

You lost again.

Anonymous

Look, it is the GOVERNMENT that is regulating speech on that page. Facebook didn’t tell the government to delete anything or ban anybody. The GOVERNMENT abridged speech. The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from regulating speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The GOVERNMENT has sole control over who can subscribe to that page, not Facebook.
Just because a public forum may be held at a private hall does not mean the GOVERNMENT can regulate speech in a way that violates the First Amendment.
Using your logic, if there were a polling place at a private club you would have no problem with the GOVERNMENT telling people they can vote only for a particular candidate and that if they don’t they will have their ballot destroyed and will be prohibited from voting ever again at that location.

Anonymous

Look, it is FACEBOOK’S page and the user of such page can regulate speech on FACEBOOK’S page because FACEBOOK has given them permission to do so. They didn’t give you permission. In fact facebook can come along and wipe out every comment on there anytime they want. It is not a publicly owned page period. I do not own my facebook page. facebook does and can shut me down anytime they want to. I am merely using their resources just like the P.D.

How did voting come into this? Using your logic you have no problem with a group of kids spray painting anything they want all over the P.D. building or City Hall etc. Free Speech, right?

Anonymous

Facebook can’t absolve the government of its obligation to protect the First Amendment. No private entity can. Several years ago, the University of Maine System agreed to a legal settlement with a former employee. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement. The courts ruled that the agreement was unenforceable because of the state’s right to know law.
What you’re not understanding is that while Facebook can take action against a user for speech with little constitutional liability, the GOVERNMENT cannot take action against a user for speech without due process. This story makes it very clear that it’s the government that is deleting speech and engaging in prior restraint. THAT is the problem.
Spray painting a public building is conduct (property damage), not speech. Oral speech and written speech share the same protections.

Anonymous

Facebook isn’t absolving the government of anything, they own the page and allow the page to be used as long as you agree and abide by their terms of service. It is not a public page. It is a privately owned page (by facebook). Yes the public can see it just like they can see the side of my house if they want, but it’s a private residence. If I allow the cops to use the side of my house as a billboard that doesn’t grant everybody in town the right to come by and write F.U. police. The only difference here is one exists in Bangor and the other in the virtual world.

What you’re not understanding is spray painting “FU” on a building or posting “FU” on a blog is the same. One is just easier to remove and takes less resources to clean up. If it cost you lots of $$ to clean up the spam on your facebook wall don’t you think it would be criminalized?

You can argue with me all day long. I see it completely different.

Anonymous

Actually, under Facebook’s terms of service, the page creator owns the page: “You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.”

Furthermore, Facebook’s terms of service states: “We respect other people’s rights, and expect you to do the same. (1) You will not post content OR TAKE ANY ACTION on Facebook that INFRINGES or VIOLATES someone else’s RIGHTS or otherwise VIOLATES THE LAW” (emphasis added).
If the government holds a public forum in a private residence or business, its obligation to uphold the constitutional right to free speech is still in effect, just as the public would have the right to attend that forum — even if the owner of the residence says “no” to a particular person’s presence.

Anonymous

But you’re not the government, so you can do what you want with your page. The police, on the other hand, cannot, and should not, do anything it wants with its page, unless it does away with the forum altogether.

Anonymous

Please give me your definition of fascism.

Anonymous

buy a dictionary.

Anonymous

Being unable to censor self is usually ultimately the road to jail. People simply don’t put up with nonsensical utterances They avoid people who do it because they don’t want to be around it.

.Our forefathers intended free speech to further free thought . Un censored utterances –insults etc need NO thought at all..Any one can spew any thought that enters the brain Most don’t Their self regulation button is working .

Anonymous

“Being unable to censor self is usually ultimately the road to jail.”

-Actually, committing crimes is usually the the road to jail. Unless you’re in North Korea which is where America heading fast.

“insults etc need NO thought at all..Any one can spew any thought that enters the brain Most don’t Their self regulation button is working .”

-Yes, that’s called free speech.

People who love freedom and liberty put up with it regardless of how insulting or hateful it might be because once you start down the road of censorship, it doesn’t stop and before you know it the thought police are kicking in your door and dragging you off to prison camps…

Anonymous

“freedom of speech” isn’t a license to act badly. It’s increasingly being used as an excuse to simply justify bad behavior. Insults aren’t free speech ; they are insults. Insults require NO thought , no “thought police ” needed. because No thought is engaged in it .

Now hate may be another matter, IF that hate targets a group based upon their group status .that could be discrimination and a violation of their CIVIL rights. Yup we ALL have “rights’ and those rights sometimes are in conflict with each other .Now that might be a fruitful discussion . You can hate all you want, BUT if that hate turns into speech or acts , in some cases, it is not only NIT free speech but hate speech and a violation of the law.( and others rights ) ‘We hold these truth to be self evident, that ALL(men) people are created equal, endowed by their creator…etc”

Anonymous

I’m pretty sure this is English. However, I can’t make heads or tails of it. Why don’t pull some of it together into a coherent thought.

Anonymous

I’m not surprised you didn’t “get it “.

Anonymous

Yeah I don’t speak crack head…sorry.

Anonymous

Insults are entirely protected by the First Amendment. You can put that in the bank.

Anonymous

You missed U.S. History class and Civics class, didn’t you?

Anonymous

The American Democrat party is pretty much the definition of Facism……all hail the one, Obama, and his magic train of debt slave dollars he rolled in on….if you choose to dissent, the dems will send you off to a camp where you belong with all the other ‘radicals’

Anonymous

HMM… what “camp”? You all fantasized about that possibility 4 years ago. So what happened ?

Anonymous

….and which definition of “responsibly” should we use? Some folks would contend that this great country was founded by folks who felt that harassing authority was patriotic. Jefferson believed that we should have a “revolution” every twenty-five years.

Anonymous

Questioning authority and revolution are certainly foundation issues upon which our country was founded.

However, the issue is not about criticizing the police. It’s about profanity and offensive content. Those are irresponsible and immature items to post on anyone’s site and therefore the owner should have rights also to remove such content. I stand behind my original comment.

Anonymous

Profanity is protected speech.
And what is “offensive”? What’s offensive to you may not be offensive to me, and vice versa. This is why the police — the government — should not be allowed to determine what is and is not offensive and summarily ban people from public forums without due process.

Anonymous

Read:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

Your definition of “irresponsible and immature” is not everyone’s, and in light of the above Supreme Court ruling, i9t is also irrelevant.

My only disagreement with Mr. Robbins is that if a site is se4t up as “informational” can posts off topic be discarded by the site’s maintenance manager..

Back in the late Seventies, New York City was experiencing a graffiti plague. Subway trains were painted from one end to the other. The city removed this “speech” although it posed no danger to folks.

The US court of appeals in New York ruled that “Subway cars were not created as a venue for dialogue or speech, but that the venue was available inside the cars for a sum of money equal to exposure and space. In other words, you could only “speak” if you had money to buy ad space.

But as I said above, the subway trains were seen by the court as only “quasi-public” as a fee was charged for admission.

Anonymous

“was founded by folks who felt that harassing authority was patriotic.” wrong!! That is that misinterpretting of the constiution and what our forefathers “meant” thing.

Freespeech was never intended to be a license to harrass,. insult , lie etc We call that bullying.not free speech.. Free speech was intended to be used to further free thought and therefore free debate on the issues of the day .The key words are THOUGHT ON THE ISSUES . Free speech after considered and considerable time on THOUGHT. first..Harrassment isn’t free speech; it is harrarsment. Harrasment doesn’t need any thought (or even a functioning brain for thought ) .Inciting riots isn’t free. speech .insulting your neighbor isn’t free speech. Neither is insulting the police or victims of crime . It’s just being a thug !!! CRUDE behavior doesn’t make you a patriot It makes you the same thug and bully you were before you ‘discovered” the constitution and started using “free speech’ to justify bad behavior

Anonymous

You are correct. Also, stalking comes to mine…physical stalking, online stalking….. It seems that some want an open license to do anything….to cause harm, violence,etc. or contribute to it. They don’t seem to understand that not anything goes. There are certain “limitations” in a civil society. If people were all decent and treated others in an appropriate manner the “monitoring” on such sites as facebook would not be even a thought, or at all necessary.

Anonymous

You are wrong… again, but I have not the time of inclination to educate you.

the “public’ should be able to censor itself.. But these days it seems some have brains that just don’t have the self regulation button turned on..They are usually juveniles or brain damaged..

Anonymous

CENSORSHIP is here

Anonymous

I see your point but perhaps since it is the FB page of the police department , they feel some responsibility. In other words, if someone makes a very hateful, violent,etc. remark on their site about someone, (someone the Bangor police dept. have had dealings with) perhaps they are trying to minimize or prevent the chances of that very inappropriate comment on FB escalating into something much worse. It is a fine line, I agree.

Anonymous

Right? Escalation is the last thing this town needs.

Anonymous

It’s not against the law to hate someone and to say that you hate someone.

Anonymous

I think that Bangor is a loud, smelly, unpleasant town, but If I wrote that on their Facebook page they would take it down. Why are the police any more “public” than the City of Bangor.

Anonymous

why would you even bother to go out of your way to say it?

Anonymous

I don’t think they would take that down. But if you said it was a loud, smelly, unpleasant, “f-ing” town, they might. Do you see the difference?

Anonymous

The “f” word is protected speech. You can wear a jacket with that word on it into City Hall and nothing can be done to you legally.

Anonymous

I don’t care which city department Facebook page or online forum it is, it would be unconstitutional to take down a post that says “Bangor is a stinky, drug-infested city.”
If the city operates the page or pays for the site, it must defer to the First Amendment insofar as inviting the public to comment.

Anonymous

acting on that hate generally starts with words and then escalates

Anonymous

If liberals had your way, conservative talk radio would be censored along with Fox News, so don’t hand out this load of manusha.

Anonymous

I would welcome something like return to “FIRING line” with Buckley , where REAL debate on the issues happened to EDUCATE the people..

Conservatives via FOX news, BECK ,Rush, Hannity is like the natiional enquirer. They are an insult to people’s intellegence. “Politics for dummies” I call it. It’s full of personal insults and lacking in ANY debate on the issues. i would LOVE to see Beck Rush etc go one on one with a lib.. the lib would make mince meat out of their argument and the conserfatives would NEVER take on the challenge because they KNOW it..

Anonymous

Censorship should have started in your own brain.Since it didn’t; it needs to be imposed upon you. Rules are for those who can’t /won’t self regulate .

Jesus criest

You do not have freedom of speech on the internet, or the “right” to use the internet, nor the specific websites, or services offered within. They are all deemed privileges to you as a member of society, no have no endowing rights to any websites comment section.

Anonymous

Yikes. So you’re claiming, then, that if you lambaste the government online anywhere the government can prosecute you for violating the all-too-used disorderly conduct statute?

lIIIIIlll

I’m sorry for switching accounts, coincidence or not my other account (jesus criest) is gone, (disqus does not recognize email or username) so apparently something I posted here or on another disqus site ended in the account disappearing, so I’m just letting you know I am replying under this name now is new acct.

If I “lambaste the government online” ? What are you implying here? I don’t lambaste the government by going to a facebook page and saying something ignorant or rude. The fan page owner has ability to remove anyone they don’t want, just as they can block anyone from viewing or contacting their own personal pages, they can use same discretion to remove users from fan pages, the only avenue of objection for the blocked or banned is appeal to facebook directly which won’t even matter. It means time to move on and get over harassing a particular place or person about something they are sharing with others who care to read. Debating is different then criticizing, a fan page owner could block someone for simply having the wrong color shirt on in their picture, really there is no actual required reasoning to block someone from harassing you on a fan page or personal page.

This is common on all sites, you don’t need to check if the person has committed any “illegal” acts, or anything that applies to real life, because this is the virtual environment with anonymous users who won’t speak up in person all day because they don’t have convenience of sitting in their computer chair with silence to “criticize” others and their decisions. FB fan pages are NOT the place to debate, criticize or change anything. You do that through official means that you probably know all about huh? “town meetings”, a in person inquiry to better understand? (watch out no google to use 24/7 and non applicable laws can be used here without looking silly).

Not trying to be rude at all, but there is a place and a time to criticize, pick the places where your words actually matter, not in comments sections on the net. Only small finite of visitors actually participate here, and even smaller of the total % of people in affected areas that even use the BDN site on normal basis.

Anonymous

The problem is it’s the government, not Facebook, abridging free speech rights, and without affording the “violators” due process. Whenever the government takes action against speech, the Constitution is an issue. The Bangor Police Department created the page and allowed comments, thus creating a public forum, as well.

Anonymous

Tattle on your neighbor, make unsubstantiated allegations and stick you nose in where it has no business being, but don’t you dare say anything negative about us and we’ll let you be our Facebook buddy.

Just my type of people!

If I hadn’t shut down my Facebook page, I’d be happy to be your pal. Not.

Anonymous

What the heck are you talking about ? It was not about people bad mouthing the police it was about people that came into a post about an arrest and made fun of the guy.

I saw those comment…it was mostly the guys family coming on there and calling people names as well as threats. They were being more inappropriate than the people that made fun. I understand their hurt but it was really out of control.

Anonymous

As long as people can still tactfully speak their minds without using vulgarity, I see no problem at all with the Bangor Police Department deleting posts and banning users from posting on its Facebook page.

I’m not on Facebook, so going over to the Bangor Police Department’s Facebook page to add my two cents worth is an impossibility because I don’t plan on ever joining Facebook—

But given our current gun culture, with the recent tragedy in the NFL and the ties here to home, what sort of message is the Bangor Police Department sending to our public school children by having plain clothed police officers carry holstered weapons in our schools, and at what grade level (if any) is appropriate to have uniformed officers walking around with loaded weapons in a public school with all of the children around? Is it just for intimidation? Our children look up to police officers, as they should, and police need to be aware that as they do their watching, they are also being noticed too.

Anonymous

They are police and should be armed at all times, possibly even in the shower.

Anonymous

I was with you 100% until the last paragraph. Civility has for the most part been completely lost on the internet. But as far as armed officers in schools goes, that is nowadays a must given the history of violent incidents in schools. That armed officer would be the first responder if there ever was one of those horrifying events in Bangor’s school system. It’s the difference between three minutes or 15 minutes response time to an active shooter incident. If BPD was to unarm the school officers and then something horrifying happened, what do you think the publics response would be? The officers chosen for the post are selected for their skills in that setting and are usually liked by most all the kids. They do not brandish their weapons and talk tough. Any miscreants getting the idea that having a gun makes you tough are not getting that from the school officers, they are seeing it daily on TV, in movies, in music, and on the internet. Every school dance my friends and I ever attended in the ’70’s had an armed officer present and we were not influenced in any way by it. In those days there was no need for an officers presence during the school day but the world has changed.

Anonymous

Most police officers I have known feel that without their gun, they are a target. The brotherhood of Police are the most paranoid folks on the face of this planet. Most officers I have met would probably (although I haven’t asked them) feel castration was preferable to gun removal.

Anonymous

What an absolutely ridiculous comment. Police officers are armed so that they can effectively respond to a violent person intent on harming others. It is the LAST thing they would ever wish to be involved in, but the possibility always exists and they must be ready.

Anonymous

Here’s a question for you?

If the police are doing such a fine job, why is there so much crime in Bangor compared to my younger days in the turbulent 1960’s when Bangor had a larger overnight population?

Anonymous

They are trained police officers and need their weapon available to them at all times in case a situation arises to use it. The children in school need to be taught why the officers are carrying. I don’t see where the nfl tragedy and police carrying their weapon in schools here in Maine are connected. It is a police officers job to carry and everyone knows that or should know that.

Anonymous

Police officers carry pistols–it’s part of the uniform all over the world with the possible exception of the United Kingdom—and quite frankly I feel more comfortable around a police officer who is armed—any time they are on the job, they should be carrying their sidearm

Anonymous

It’s part of their JOB to carry a gun.; just like a plumber carries a wrench..If the posts were ‘tactful “;no one would be removing them .Keep that in mind–if your post is removed any where– you might think twice about your being a mutant

Anonymous

gun culture?

more like our curent ‘progressive’ culture that is anti-family

Guest

It’s emotionally and physically exhausting to be you isn’t it….

Briney

A over zealous Bangor ballot clerk once told a Bangor police officer he couldn’t vote unless he gave the clerk his weapon. The officer refused.

Without going into all of the horrible “what ifs?” we know what would have happened had some gun nut decided whip out an automatic in the polling center, and the officer’s weapon lay useless in the hands of a polling clerk.

Given today’s sad society, bereft of much of the civilized life we once held as the highest in the world, gun nuts could just as easily bust into a school in Maine, as they have in other sections of the country. We already have students carrying weapons to school.

What’s next? Who knows? In our society we need to have armed police. A professional police officer walking the school corridors, armed and ready for any intrusion by some crackpot is something we cannot live without. It would be good to see a police presence in shopping centers, too.

Without abridging the rights of gun lovers, we the unarmed, have a right to be protected, too.

.

Anonymous

Way to get tough on crime Bangor Police (not). When is the last time that someone in Bangor was arrested for a Facebook crime? Why are we paying officers to spend time patrolling Facebook, when any number of neighborhoods are becoming overrun with drug dealers and sex offenders? I get that you don’t like the fact that some people are posting snipes on your Facebook page, but I’m not really sure that I care. I’m more concerned with the drug dealer living in the apartment up the road and the local official who is renting to him. Step away from the computer and get into a patrol car. Please.

Anonymous

Do you have any idea the the help that page gives the BPD ? My guess is even the “crack heads” have been reported by way of it. Why is it some people just can never be happy ? Perhaps you would like an already short police department to be everywhere all the time ? That page helps a lot and they have caught many people from post on there. Stop being so damn grumpy.

Anonymous

I’d like them to address actual crime in Bangor, not spend their time surfing the net in search of comments that offend them. I’d rather see a cop running a speed trap on Stillwater Avenue than patrolling Facebook for anonymous comments.

Anonymous

That is because you do not have a clue about department operations.

Anonymous

ALL police departments depend on the public for information . Without public input very few crimes are solved. I would suggest that if people…reasonable people like Ryan Robbins are being offended by the BPD Facebook page that maybe the tech officer might wish to do some reassessing. And I DO have a clue about police work.

Anonymous

Actual crime( and criminals) often starts with someone shooting their mouth off . Most people who commit crime have NO self regulation— That is their MAJOR problem — they can’t/won’t follow the simpilst of rules because “no one is going to tell ME what to do ” it starts with disobeying the parent , then goes on to breaking school rules and then finally breaking society’s rules.It’s a one way ticket to jail .

Anonymous

Then get on the back of the drug dealer and the local official who is renting to him! Must be tough sledding not being dependent upon local police and protecting yourself.

Superuser23

Step away from the computer and get into a patrol car. Please.

I have made that request several times, it has been a few years and I yet to see it happen, but when they do get in the patrol car, then you got to ask them to enforce laws.

Superuser23

The department recently was contacted by a woman who was hurt when she read what people were saying about her brother, who had been arrested, which spurred police officials to consider the new policy, Edwards said.

Really? If your borther didn’t do something so stupid you wouldn’t see them comments. It is public, whine to the police and media for posting the story while you are at it too.

Some people have some growing up to do

Anonymous

Not everyone who is arrested is guilty, or even charged with a crime.

Anonymous

True. But it is public information also

Anonymous

Which is why we have a right to know who was banned from the city’s Facebook page and exactly what they were banned for.

Anonymous

who died and made you judge and jury??

Superuser23

Who died and made you the attorney?

Anonymous

The fact that the police department has a facebook page at all is hilarious.

Anonymous

Not really. It’s part of community relations.

Anonymous

Yeah, and it will be so much more funny when and if you are a victim and they solve the crime committed upon you.

Anonymous

I’d like to see the evidence on how a Facebook page has been more effective in fighting crime than a tip or complaint e-mailed, mailed, or phoned in.

Anonymous

You think the police solve crimes? now that is really funny.

jerrymyx

well who the heck solves the crimes then? OH I know, you think it is … Charlie Chan.. right!! I think the BPD just did one heck of a job solving the triple homicide in Bangor… would you not agree? that was a complex case…

Anonymous

I would agree that without a informant the BPD would still be chasing their collective butts.

If you get all your information from the media, you are uninformed.

Anonymous

Good! It’s the BPD’s FB page, they’re entitled to run it as they see fit.

Anonymous

Of course, the Police Department is part of the government, which raises First Amendment concerns…

Anonymous

Your point is valid, Ryan. Do we tolerate those who would emotionally harm others through indiscreet exercise of their free speech rights or abridge their free speech by deleting their words? Probably the test is in the word ‘indiscreet’, as in the landmark supreme court ruling that it’s not OK to cry ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater. FB was designed to be a social networking medium – social community bulletin board if the owner of the page desires – , and can be and is abused daily. Does abridging the exercise of an indiscreet person’s 1st amendment rights in that forum only constitute censorship? I don’t know the answer to that.

Anonymous

I think that if a Facebook page is created by a government agency, First Amendment protection exists, even for the most heinous of speech — short of threats, of course. Any libelous posts should be left between the parties involved, just as such speech would be left alone by the police if uttered in a public hearing. Our nation’s founding fathers understood that free speech could invite harsh language. They understood that free speech is essential to democracy.
I say the Bangor Police Department needs to provide the Facebook identities of those banished, including the “offending” posts. The page is a public forum precisely because the government created it and invites public comment. Therefore, due process is needed before “offenders” can be banned from the forum and the public has the right to know who the offenders are and what their offenses were.
We should NEVER take the government’s word for it. WE are the government. And that is why this story should not have been published without balance and context. And the headline — it’s just stupid. I am saddened by what is becoming of this newspaper.

Anonymous

Actually Ryan I am far more concerned when I hear that a citizen has been forcibly removed by police from a town meeting, or from the “public information forum” at the Searsport tank hearings… and very few people commented on that aspect of those stories.

Anonymous

99.9% of maine citizens would not be removed from a public hearing…on the other hand, many would post to public or government sponsored web/social media sites…..the answer is for BPD to find another social media resource or dont do social media or find another resource that people can get info to the BPD through social media…….there are many options to reach thier goals that want from FACEBOOK…..

Anonymous

“I think that if a Facebook page is created by a government agency, First Amendment protection exists,..” first amendment right’s have their limits .OUR forefathers wanted free speech for free unfettered discussion of ISSUES not for charactert assasination or for LYING!! !Use it; don’t abuse it ; or you lose it

as far as I can see The right with their new found “discovery” of the constitution and bizarre interpretation of it ; are abusing it and should LOSE it. Free speech doesn’t include LYING ,innuendo, character assasination and just making things up.The right loses any credibility and is immoral when it scream “free speech” to abuse it.. No you aren’t free to say what ever you want.

Anonymous

um…yes you are free to say whatever you want, short of anything that is criminal……its a pretty easy standard……If BPD doesnt like wants being said, and it is not criminal it certainly has a host of other choices other than to censor…..including Mainegals17’s suggestion……

Anonymous

You have no clue as to what our founders wanted. Free speech is not restricted speech. If you put a limit on speech then that is a RESTRICTION and therefore it becomes regulated and can no longer be called FREE. Get a clue.

Anonymous

get a clue— the court has said free speech can BE ‘regulated.”For example you are not free to falsely yell “FIRE “in a crowded theater .Free speech comes with the responsibility to use it wisely.

.
Our forefathers wanted free speech to further free thought so the important issues of the day. could be freely and vigorously debated with out fear of retribution.. Insulting your neighbor doesn’t “make the grade” because it isn’t an important issue of the day.( to anyone but you) .

There are all kinds of things you are NOT “free” to say., under certain circumstances..You can’t liable someone, for example.

Anonymous

You made my point. We don’t have free speech because it is regulated so quit referring to it as free speech.

Secondly your constant references to our founders and what their intent was is laughable to say the least. In our founders day you could yell fire all day in a crowded theater.

In their day in age they most certainly would not have wanted any sort of speech regulated. If you slandered a person publicly those matters were often settled by duel. Look up Aaron Burr who killed Alexander Hamilton (a founding father by the way there “history buff”) in a duel all over public defamation of character.

You get a clue pal and learn some history., I don’t care what courts say or what the public opinion today is our founder supported free speech. real free speech. Not your “say anything as long as I’m not offended” -speech.

Anonymous

Well, your username certainly fits the bill.

Here are some quotes from the Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment:

— “… [R]ights of free speech and a free press are not confined to any field of human interest” (Thomas v. Collins, 1945)

— “… [T]he First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political.” (United Mine Workers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association et al, 1967).

— “… [W]e cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function … which may be the most important element of the overall message” (Cohen v. California, 1971).

— “The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not a sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of speech and press” (Roth v. United States, 1957).

Then we have words from our founding fathers:

— “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech” (Benjamin Franklin)

— “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” (George Washington)

Anonymous

“Free speech doesn’t include LYING ,innuendo, character assasination and just making things up”.

Yes, as objectionable as those things are, they too are free speech.

Heck, if you censored someone for LYING you’d have to censor most politicians……..

Anonymous

Actually, the founding fathers intended for a free marketplace of ideas, knowing full well there would be abhorent speech for sale.
The First Amendment protects much more than discussion of “issues.” It protects your right to express an opinion of the government, even if you use vulgarity; it protects your right to display a political candidate’s campaign sign; it protects your right to make a motion picture or sound recording and to distribute that recording; it protects your right to distribute leaflets or brochures or newsletters; it protects your right to make phone calls and write letters; it protects your right to create a website; it protects your right to buy books, newspapers, magazines, and other publications; it protects your right to call the governor or the president or any other public official a corrupt scoundrel; it protects your right to take photos or video of people in public; it protects your right to put a bumper sticker on your vehicle; it protects your right to speak freely on a walkie-talkie on a family camping trip; it protects your right to create a family Christmas card or calendar.
I could go on and on.
“Character assassinations” and “lies” are civil matters. If you believe someone has libeled you, you don’t go to the police — they can’t do anything for you (apparently the Bangor Police think they can). You file a lawsuit or you exercise your right of reply.
As for just “making things up,” that most certainly is protected speech. In the marketplace of ideas, all ideas are allowed. If you believe someone has made something up, such as saying such-and-such a neighborhood is the drug capital of Bangor, you are free to offer information to rebut that claim or to ask the person making the claim to support it with evidence.

Anonymous

Six people, at this point, apparently didn’t stay awake in high school civics class.

Anonymous

Censorship by the police! Hmmm. This has so many ramifications.

Anonymous

if people would /could censor there own brain before a thought hits the key board ; we;’d all be better off. and no one would need to be “censored”. That is what the BRAIN is for — self regulation.

Anonymous

Guess your brain missed my point.

RocklandME

No it doesn’t…

Anonymous

Explain how it doesn’t raise concerns.

Anonymous

Then again, BPD could always opt to not even have a FB page.

Anonymous

I would say that if the city is going to make personal judgments on what is offensive, yes, do away with the page or prohibit everybody from commenting and use it strictly to provide information.

Anonymous

Actually, the page belongs to the residents of Bangor, and what constitutes free speech is not subject to popular vote.

Anonymous

I doubt that ownership is an issue with any of the comentators…I think that everyone agrees that BPD owns any creation IP rights, and as a government agency of the city – ultimate ownership. The issue is with management, and I still contend that because, for example, the city offers BPD the use of police vehicles and charges BPD with the responsibility of managing the use of them for the public benefit that a FB page is no different.

Anonymous

The police don’t have any intellectual property rights, as they are a government agency. Any intellectual property rights belong to the people. However, when someone comments on a Facebook page, that comment belongs to the person who posted (unless, of course, the person violates copyright law), unless there is an agreement the poster agrees to give up copyright.

Anonymous

Ryan, I’m not disagreeing with you on ownership, only management practices of city-owned property by a government agency…

Anonymous

You’d never catch me wasting my valuable time on a comment site.

This is a silly story reminiscent of those “police learn to use the interweb” stories from circa 1997 and the “teachers learn to use the interweb” stories from 2009 or so.

Anonymous

Then why are you “wasting your valuable time” on this comment site?

Anonymous

Oh boy. I didn’t mean it as a test, honestly.

Anonymous

Trusting what you comment on just went south.

Anonymous

Your comment is what is totally silly.

Anonymous

I guess it’s official. Nok-Noi Ricker is indeed covering the Facebook beat. That’s where she goes when someone is arrested on suspicion of committing a crime. And now this.

This is lazy reporting. There is always more to the story. But again, the Bangor Daily seems more concerned with shoving stories out the door as quickly as possible, without waiting to gather as much information as possible. I remember the days when you couldn’t get a story into the Maine Campus student newspaper without at least three sources. In reality, this story has only one — the Bangor Police Department.

A proper story would have views from First Amendment scholars or the American Civil Liberties Union. A proper story would have views from some of those who have been banned from posting on the Facebook page. I would argue that the identities of those banned are a matter of public record. Let’s hear their side. Let’s see what people have said that caused lifetime banishment from a virtual public square. Because, quite frankly, it’s frightening to think the government is ousting people from a public forum without providing supporting evidence.

But I guess filling space in an ever decreasing news hole is all that matters, not waiting to get things right or waiting to gather more information for a more complete story…

Anonymous

Where have you been Ryan? The great newspapers in the USA are no longer doing the reporting they once did, forget about little third class publications. The New York Times has half the number of full time reporters on staff that it had in 1973.

jerrymyx

I agree with the BPD. There is absolutely NO need to post any comment, be it on The BPD Facebook page or the BDN comment section; which includes profanity, rudeness, derogatory/ condescending remarks ect.. It is about respect for the Police work!

Anonymous

Actually, there’s this thing called the First Amendment. The First Amendment — part of the law of the land — is most deserving of respect.
We are treading dangerous waters if the police are allowed to punish people for “rude” words and “condescending remarks.”
Is saying “The Bangor PD stinks” rude? Yes. But that is exactly the speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

Anonymous

…and you can stand in front of the PD with a sign which says just what you feel, BUT Facebook page OWNERS get to say what they will allow in their comment section.

Anonymous

The owner of that page is the city of Bangor. Therefore, the city must honor the First Amendment rights of those who post on the page.

Anonymous

sorry they aren’t there to be your anonymous punching bag!!Neither is your wife, dog, kid etc..

Anonymous

sounds like you speak from experience there PF…

poor kids

Anonymous

Check your wiring, Jack. Sounds like you have a short circuit somewhere.

Anonymous

It appears some simply post on web sites to practice bullying skills Sorry that isn’t “free speech” that is bullying plain and simple. Free speech actually has a productive and useful purpose .

Use it ;don’t abuse it ; or you lose it .

Anonymous

Who are “they”?
And by the way, anonymous speech is protected. Apparently you have no idea that the reason we exist as a nation is because our founding fathers engaged in free speech against England, much of it anonymous and vulgar for the standards of the day.
It is shocking that people don’t understand that the city owns the Facebook page…

Anonymous

I disagree. I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not extend into defamation or obscenity. They have just as much of a right to protect themselves from that. Freedom of speech is not entirely free. You cannot put out some random statement like ‘Bangor pd stinks’ and not expect them to react in some form. It would be no different if you wrote ‘Bangor PD stinks’ on a giant poster, attached it in some form to their building, and they took it down. You may have a right to hang it there, but they have just as much of a right to take it down. This is no different.

Anonymous

sorry you are wrong….it sounds good as common practice or civility, but not when it comes to the Constitution and the rights of free speech……

Rights are a funny thing we all have them. Your’s ends where other’s begins.The BPD ( or victims of crime or their relatives) have a right to not be verbally abused( by you) And the BPD has an obligation to “protect” them ( from you) and did. You can scream free speech all you like .But don’t be surprized if you insult the wrong person in the wrong way they may exert their rights on you.

Anonymous

If it doesn’t ‘t harm them it is legal. Look at the westsomething Baptist church protesting military funerals. Just being offensive is legal

Anonymous

You know what, I will do a 180 on this and admit to being wrong.

Thinking about this for a moment, while Facebook is a private company and that Facebook page is technically private, by the fact that government is stepping in and blocking/censoring comments made by people, that is against our freedom of speech. Now, if it were Facebook themselves coming in and banning those users, that would be okay as more than like they would get to use the fact that those posters were going against their terms of service agreement and being a private company enforcing their own rules, they are allowed to censor that speech. But, if its city officials or the department censoring/blocking those users, that is against our first amendment. I have changed my opinion. They have no right to do this. They could be real jerks about it and report those users to facebook and allow them to ban the users, but they have no right to do that themselves since they are in fact a government entity.

Anonymous

but what if, as suggested here ,…the comments are abusing another?? Would not the BPD( or PPH or any other site ) be liable for the harm produced by allowing the harmful comments?

Anonymous

If its illegal its not protected and a site has an obligation to remove it as soon as they become aware.

Anonymous

That’s one of the problems with the story — there’s no indication Ricker even asked whether any of the posts involved possible criminal activity.

Anonymous

No.

Anonymous

Highly doubtful. But by picking and choosing which posts to allow, the city is now opening itself up to taking on some liability.
For example, a phone company is a common carrier. You can’t hold the phone company responsible if someone uses its lines to defame someone. But if the phone company were to screen calls, faxes, e-mails, now it is endorsing certain speech and allowing it. A plaintiff could then argue that the company had a responsibility to screen out the defamatory speech.

Anonymous

You got it

Anonymous

Defamation, however, is a civil matter. The police have no authority to take action on what it deems to be defamation. Obscenity does not refer to a specific word. For example, the “f” word is not obscene.
In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to walk into a courthouse sporting a jacket that says “F— the draft.”
The case involved Paul Robert Cohen, who walked into the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing that jacket. The state of California charged Cohen with violating the state’s obcsenity law, and Cohen was convicted. Cohen lost in the trial court, he lost in the appeals court, he couldn’t even get his appeal heard by the California Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Harlan said in the court’s ruling: “… [W]e cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function … which may be the most important element of the overall message.”
Attaching a poster to the building of the Police Department is behavior. The city can prohibit such behavior. However, if the city allows people to post signs on the building, all signs must be allowed (absent one that has obscene photos, of course). A Facebook page is not a building. And in this case, the city allowed everyone to post. Therefore, the city cannot pick and choose which posts can remain (absent an actual violation of the law, such as criminal threats) and then engage in prior restraint by permanently banning people who post an offending message.

Anonymous

It’s virtually, if not completely, impossible to defame the police. In fact, criticism of the government — using vulgar words, no less — is the highest form of protected speech (see my previous references to the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter).

Anonymous

Actually freedom of speech DOES include obscenity..

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

Anonymous

And what about the “rights’ of others to be free from abuse??

Anonymous

Nothing in the story says anything about “ownership” of the facebook page. this could be an officer acting as a private citizen, a P.B.A. entity, or simply an informational site. If it is an informational site, anything other than targeted information could be deleted.

Anonymous

“Some 50 people who have made rude, crude or obnoxious comments on the Bangor Police Department’s Facebook page…”

That’s ownership. Additionally, the department has a link to its Facebook on its own Web page on the city site.
As for whether the site is informational, thus exempted from permitting speech, the fact that subscribers are encouraged to comment on the department’s posts shoots that argument down. It is, in a word, a forum. It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. Therefore, it is a duck.

Anonymous

saying the “Bangor PD stinks “on a BPD websites is just plain stupid.It indicates a juvenile mind or a brain injury incapable of self regulation.It’s meant to instigate , bring attention to one’s self IT’s not free speech— far from it. it is an utterance that should be censored by your own brain..IF you REALLY care any thing about “free speech”..

Anonymous

free speech covers people with the brains and attitude you described……

Anonymous

if it doesn’t create real danger or cause measurable harm it is protected. Being stupid and saying stupid things is not illeagal. I find your regular lies and distortion quite offensive but that doesn’t make it right for government to decide what is and is not offensive. BDN as a private company can censor their page but police cannot if the wall is open to the public. As long as what is said is not illegal or against Facebook TOU they are obligated to protect it. Censorship by any arm of government is so fundamentally wrong it boggles my mind. That’s something for Communists not democracy.

jerrymyx

My concern, is why/ if the BPD felt the need to have BDN write this story in the first place. I would have thought, all the BPD had to do, was to daily delete the negative comments!!!

Anonymous

Wait, you think the BPD called up the BDN and told them to write a story about it ? Hey, ummm, is this the BDN ? Well have I got a story for you…hahaha.

jerrymyx

I did not say the BPD phoned the BDN for the story to be told….

Anonymous

The second paragraph indicates Ricker saw the department’s post. Ricker, after all, has a knack for quickly relying on Facebook to fill in unconfirmed information on suspected criminals and victims with other stories.

Anonymous

jeez. i wonder what the BPD was doing back in the days before stuff like Facebook, which is really just a time waster and literally not based in reality.

Facebook for the PD? that sounds as ripe for abuse as a pajama party at a high school for a football team….and just about as silly.

Anonymous

Facebook can, and often is, a useful social tool. Sure, some people think they must post every thought they have. But a lot of users just want to use it to keep in touch with relatives and old school friends or to establish connections with others who share the same interests. Organizations can use it to field concerns from constituents and to make announcements and dispense information quickly.

Anonymous

i agree. but my instinct sees things the daily wackiness happening around Bangor and the juxtaposition of the police maintaining a Facebook page and makes me wonder if all the priorities are actually straight and whether resources are being deployed effectively and efficiently.

Anonymous

Then why bring it up according to your misguided philosphies.

Anonymous

“Then why bring it up…”

because as soon as you stop questioning the policies and actions of people who spend tax dollars they begin to waste them.

are you SURE this might not be one of those cases? you wouldn’t know unless you looked into it, right?

Andre Linoge

the bdn won’t get rid of me

jerrymyx

haha nope your already gone!!!

Jazz11

Goodbye first amendment.

Anonymous

The Bangor Police Facebook page is considered a “quasi-public” entity. While the public is welcome to come and visit, and post, they must abide by the rules of the site. There is no first amendment protection for folks who wish to post outside the limits of the rules.

If you wish to stand on the public sidewalk outside the Bangor Police Department with a sign indicating your displeasure with the police, THEN you might have a first amendment issue if they interfered.

I would also guess that one could put up a Facebook page criticizing the Bangor Police. Again that person would have to abide by the rules set down by Facebook.

The internet has been touted as a forum for free expression. It really is not, as the venue is “owned” by folks who are not really interested in allowing others a forum, so much as having one for themselves…. And I have never in 60 years met a policeman who was interested in the opinion of others.

Anonymous

Bzzt.
This is a case in which the city took action, not Facebook. If users felt a certain post or user had violated Facebook’s terms, then a complaint could have been lodged with Facebook. There wouldn’t have been anything wrong with that.
However, the Bangor Police Department — a government agency outright — created and ows the page. Therefore, it must respect the First Amendment rights of the public.
I own one Facebook page and moderate another myself. I can have stricter rules on subscribers than Facebook’s rules. But that’s because the page I own and the page I moderate are privately owned, with no government association. But a government sponsored Facebook page has to respect the First Amendment; its rules cannot be stricter than Facebook’s, and in fact probably have to be looser than Facebook’s.
There have been instances in which someone has objected to another person’s post on my pages and I have declined to delete the “offending” post.

Anonymous

Ryan I really do not need or want information on what “Facebook” can and can not do. I am saying that under the law the Bangor Police Department CAN create a quasi-public entity. They also have the right to moderate it as they see fit.

The Government places many many restrictions on the right to “free speech.” There was a man tossed out of a public meeting (by the police) in Searsport because of what the “MIGHT have said.” People are tossed from town meetings all the time.

The point i9s that unless someone with a bunch of money wants to try to take this particular case to the Supreme Court, it is probably not worth discussing. The Cigarette industry lost big time when it went up against the government concerning its “free speech” rights, so I guess I’ll pass on that battle.

Jesus criest

It’s good that they decided to remove those posts and clean up the fb comments section on the page but; as we all know permanently banning someone is impossible just by technical standards given proxies n such, but nonetheless will prevent their fb comment problem from being a big deal.

Banning via Accounts would be more accurate, the person would still have access to comments section after making new account. I’m not sure FB would give IPs of posters on stories, but thats why I say “accounts”, to suggest they would need proxy to get by that “permanent ban” as the sgt coins it, is kind of foolish on my part, but its all good.

Anonymous

actually it is quite easy to change your IP address, or post from ma separate device.

Then there are always the toss-phones.

Jesus criest

Changing IP address wouldn’t be required unless facebook gives them access to that type of ban which I believe isn’t the case, its just the feature FB added into all fan pages ect, giving access to ban the “person” as defined by “account” permanently.

I guess it was an assumption on my part to even bring IPs into this mix because I don’t believe that’s what the sgt. was implying, he is just utilizing the FB feature everyone has ability to use on a fan page they created.

Anonymous

GOOD move.i was shocked recently when I went to an on line site and saw the posts there— REALLY REALLY disgusting — who grows these people with their disgusting posts?? They must be grown in a petrie dish. They certainly don’t resemble human beings.They must be a scientific experiment for some other form of being– a mutation of life.

jerrymyx

these are mostly people who just grew, were not raised to be decent citizens, and are mostly ignorant!!

Anonymous

posting from jail , the youth center etc..

Anonymous

Now you see, if you post that on the Bangor Police Department’s Facebook page, the police would probably take it down and ban you forever. And guess what? I would be defending you, even though I vehemently disagree with you on this issue.
That’s what this is about: Protecting speech you don’t agree with, protecting people you don’t agree with.

Oh boy, another example of people who think they know the law. The First Amendment certainly does allow you to say what you want. It’s not against the First Amendment for the Bangor PD to delete your comment and ban you from future comments on their facebook page any more than it’s against the First Amendment for a comment to be removed from the comment section here.

Anonymous

The Bangor Daily News is not a govenment entity. Therefore, the paper can delete posts. The Bangor Police Department is a government entity and has no right to summarily squelch speech.

In the Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota, the court struck down a Minnesota law that allowed the state’s courts to prohibit futher publication, editing, production, circulation, etc. of a newspaper by Jay M. Near and Howard Guilford, who owned the Saturday Press, without due process. The state had prosecuted the publishers under a newly enacted “public nuisance” law, arguing that the publishers had created a public nuisance by haphazardly attacking people in their newspaper and accusing government officials, including the police, of being corrupt.

Under the Constitution, the government cannot strip anyone of his rights without a trial.

Guest

The comments here should be moderated more closely and there are definitely a certain few who should be curtailed.

jerrymyx

yep, got one for you…TLMMSW I am working on this one….with a lil help from my friend…. could even be more to it than removal !!!

Guest

Huh?
There is too much bullying here in the comment sections and flagging a post doesn’t do much good at times.

jerrymyx

the commenter used my given name and I ignored that, but the person became consistently more belligerent, condescending and rude, bullying.. and kept using my real name, until finally after several rants; they published my full name, which I still did NOT acknowledge…I just don”t know how they found out my real name, a bit scary to be honest with you… because I did not give my screen name out to anyone; yet they found out my real name.. bothersome, and worrisome,,,ya never know the person could be a dangerous individual…

Anonymous

There was even more of that going on on the BDN site a few years ago, if you can believe it. They have cut down on alot of it, rightly so.

Anonymous

I have no idea what you’re talking about specifically, but there is no law against someone identifying you by your real name. That’s speech protected from government intervention.

Anonymous

And THAT is what the comment section is for…..training
get used to it, perhaps someday you’ll beg for it…..oh look, you already are
thanks pal

Guest

It’s emotionally and physically exhausting to be you isn’t it…..

Anonymous

“training” ? for what ? to be a jerk?

Anonymous

You folks are lucky that you still have this forum. Press Herald scuttled its forum section by restricting access to those with a FB identity. The bogus explanation was to make it more civil by requiring posters to use their real name. The truth is the paper’s been taken over by liberals who exercised the power to silence those who disagreed with them. I won’t say censor because it’s a private message board that can do what they want. The point is, the BPD story indicates people will post inappropriate comments EVEN WITH their real name EVEN TO authority figures with the power to extract their identity from a comment. BDN is just as liberal as Press Herald, and I’ll bet they are considering changing over to FB. But, that would be “pretty foolish” to insult away half of your media audience when your revenue depends on site traffic. Oh, it’s liberals, they don’t care about business aspects they just want their rag to parrot their beliefs without annoying pundits bothering them with things like fiscal cliffs, medicaid deficits, and Benghazi.

Anonymous

i havent read the PPH or MS or KJ or MS since

Anonymous

Bangor PD, like anyone else who creates a Facebook page, has the right to decide who can view and comment on their page. Its pretty basic here boys and girls. If you want to conduct yourself in such a manner that you offend them, or their other members on their page, you get the boot. Just because they work for the public does not mean they have to tolerate anything and everything that people feel the need to say.

Anonymous

It’s a government agency. BDN is not. BDN has the right to sensor these posts government does not. If there is a public message area it should only be censored to comply with laws. Freedom of speech rulings support anything that doesn’t. Measurably harm someone else or create danger to them. All government officers are sworn to uphold the constitution. Which includes protecting ones right to free speech. I found Occupys message offensive buti support their right to use public space to broadcast their opinion.

Anonymous

Someone else who gets it!
I’d give this two thumbs up, but then the second one would negate the first one :-)

Anonymous

Yikes. Under Maine’s right to know law, the Bangor Police Department cannot prevent people from viewing its Facebook page. The page is a public record.
And unlike “anyone else,” the government cannot summarily decide who can and cannot comment on the page.

lIIIIIlll

It looks like we have a new user, welcome to the internet my friend. I know you are excited to play lawyer as everybody does, but I assure you there is no need to even delve into this debate, as its already common knowledge any public/private venue is subject to moderation, that moderation is not defined by “laws” or “constitutions”, you would have to be pretty high to think you would even waste a courts time trying to revoke a “non effective” ban from a facebook page, or a comment section.

Have you never been banned from anywheres before? Its not as it sounds buddy, you can still view the site fine just can’t post under that same account, and once you create new one your back to square A (can post, like, ect). Just because the its the police fan page, that doesn’t mean anything. Its still owned by FB and they could moderate it for anything they see fit. Your not going to navigate to someones website, post a comment and then bring them to court when they delete it and ban you, but random quoting of non applicable laws on comment sections is about all you CAN do, Lol.

sassyfrazz

Yes, we’re all entitled to free speech, but I’m simply amazed that some people aren’t embarrassed at the comments they make using facebook. I find it particularly amazing when they’re saying something incredibly nasty or bullying with a profile picture of a smiling, seemingly typical family.

It’s even more ironic when they ‘like’ antibullying pages and/or other pages that are designed to point out those who pick on others for amusement.

It’s pretty sad that the world is full of immature people who are so bent on being hateful (to the point of personal attacks) that a facebook page has to block them – free speech or not.

Anonymous

I dont know about anyone else but I am somewhat tired of reading comments on here that are meaningless and dumb. This would be my freedom of speech

Anonymous

If someone wishes to be rude, crude, or just plain numb they have a perfect right to do so; however don’t ask the rest of us to provide a place for you to do it. Pay your own way. Great job, Peter.

Anonymous

How did this become a First Amendment issue? It’s Facebook. Does Bangor PD use tax-payer funds to maintain their page? Blocking people is not “censorship”, it’s blocking people.

Anonymous

The Bangor Police Department is a government agency. Therefore, it has a responsibility to uphold the First Amendment.
Say the city holds a public forum on police department operations at one of the local banquet centers. Say the banquet center doesn’t charge for the room. Just because the room is privately owned (Facebook.com), the fact that the room is being rented (albeit for nothing) and used for a public meeting by the city requires that the First Amendment be respected. It would be unconstitutional for the police to remove someone who took the mic and said “You guys stink.” It would even, per a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, be unconstitutional for the police to remove someone who took the mic and said, “Chief Smith is a f—–.”

lIIIIIlll

I don’t know what your trying to say, your ignoring normal and passing it off as some illegal cover-up tragedy, I think the issue you have with this is this was made into a BDN article and it was on mostreadbox? Really thats the only thing I can extract, You make irrelevant points quoting non applicable general laws and implying you are speaking on behalf of a “city” or “state”.

I think in principal alot of things the constitution set that you so desperately quote is misinterpreted and abused, founding fathers never foreseen anonymous comment sections on internet boards did they? Do you see public and private venues abiding to generic bland human rights written hundreds of years ago taken out of context of modern life or their own private policies and terms of use (both can be viewed via bottom of FB page.) Lol?

If what you believe; and I do think you actually have convinced yourself somehow, is that all websites whether private or public owned, govt organization or not are subject to constitutional freedom of speech rights, you have not used many comment boards or the internet in general. Check around, it is normal for moderation on any site, and nobody shuts down a site for being banned or blocked claiming “freedom of speech” violation, no judge is that silly; which is hard to believe given some of the lax sentences we’ve seen for abusers ect,.

Anonymous

Where have I ever indicated I am speaking on behalf of a city or a state. Quite the opposite.
Nowhere have I said that a private website or private Web page must allow free speech. However — and God, I don’t know why so many pepole are having a difficult time grasping this — when the government is managing the page, then the First Amendment is in play, and very much so.
I will once again use my analogy in yet another attempt to demonstrate why the First Amendment applies. Only I will try to make it simpler.
The Bangor Police Department decides to hold a public forum to get input from the public. It decides to rent a room at Facebook Banquet Center, which offers the room at no cost to the city. During the forum, the public is encouraged to step up to the microphone and comment on various issues. One speaker stands up and says “I’d like to thank you for arresting John Smith last week. I think it’s hilarious that you arrested him for burglary.” The speaker laughs.
The chief of police gets up from the table he’s sitting at, orders the speaker to leave the forum on the basis of the comment being insulting and rude, escorts him out, and tells the speaker that he is prohibited from speaking at the next forum.
That would be a clear-cut violation not only of the speaker’s First Amendment rights, but of his due process rights as well because it’s a public forum presented by the government, and the government abridged someone’s speech.
That is quite different from Facebook having a forum and kicking out and banning someone for saying, “I like purple skies.” In this case, the government is not involved. Therefore, Facebook is in the clear on First Amendment grounds. (But let’s say there is a police officer, on duty, attending the forum for security, and he acts on his own, that would also be a violation of the First Amendment because he is acting in his governmental capacity.)